Category Archives: 2008 Election

Note to Jesse Jackson, Jr: Attempting to re-write history does not help your cause

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Chicago) posted an essay on the Huffington Post today entitled, Abolish the Electoral College.

I don’t normally read the Huffington Post, so a hat-tip to Kleinheider of the Nashville Post for highlighting it.

Rep. Jackson’s argument is that the Electoral College is inherently racist, the product of “the slave-owners who dominated the politics of our new nation at its beginning.”

He goes on to cite the notorious three-fifths compromise, whereby slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of Congressional representation and the Electoral College.

There’s just one problem with this recitation of historical facts – Rep. Jackson is completely wrong.

Here is but one howler from Rep. Jackson’s essay:

“the Founding Fathers were suspicious of a mass popular vote that included everyone, and a significant number of the “states rights” Southerners worried about the more populous Northern states outvoting them and restricting or eliminating slavery.”

This is exactly backwards. It was the Northern states who were worried about being outvoted. The Connecticut plan proposed that each state have equal representation in the Congress (as had been the practice in the Continental Congress). It was the southern states, in particular Virginia who objected and wanted representation in the Congress to be proportional to the population. Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Connecticut were the state’s insisting on “states’ rights.”

The text of the Constitution itself apportioned the representatives in the first Congress as follows:

NH- 3
MA- 8
RI – 1
CT – 5
NY – 6
NJ – 4
PA – 8
DE – 1
MD – 6
VA – 10
NC – 5
SC – 5
GA – 3

Thus, there were 65 representatives in the first Congress. States south of the Mason Dixon line had 30 of those 65. The swing states of PA and NJ had 12. The New England states had the remaining 23.

The Southern states had nothing to fear from representation based on population. It was what they wanted.

Jackson’s other canard is that “the slave-owners insisted on another compromise, a particularly ugly one. Despite not being allowed to vote, slaves were to be counted as 3/5 of a person.”

Also wrong. As a few seconds of elementary logic and reflection should suffice to demonstrate. Women and children were not allowed to vote either, but they were counted in all states for the purposes of apportioning representatives. They didn’t have to be specifically included, the concept was simply total population. It was the NORTHERN states, not the Southern ones who insisted on singling out the category they called “free persons” and a second group called simply, “all other persons.” It was the NORTHERN states who insisted that three fifths of the number of “all other persons” be counted. The Southern states would have preferred that the total population of the states be counted. It would have given them a larger share of the representatives in Congress. And the Northern states did not intend the compromise as a statement of the inferiority of the slaves. They were simply trying to reduce the number of representatives granted to the Southern states in the new Congress.

Neither the US Constitution nor the Electoral College give support to the institution of slavery. At worst they recognize it as an existing evil that should over time be abolished. The Constitution itself explicitly gave congress the authority to abolish the importation of slaves twenty years after ratification, which congress in due course did in 1808. The Southern states were not the only ones in which slavery was legal. Prior to 1776, slavery was an established institution in all thirteen colonies. New York did not abolish slavery until 1799, New Jersey not until 1804.

Make no mistake, slavery in the United States was a great evil. Would that it had been abolished more quickly and with less bloodshed! Thanks be to God that it was abolished.

But it had nothing to do with the Electoral College.

– Rob Shearer
Director, Schaeffer Study Center (and tutor in History)

What Bristol Palin’s pregnancy really reveals


Before the news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy was barely a few hours old, the hyenas of the left gathered — gleeful and gloating, set to make Bristol’s pregnancy as difficult and stressful as possible.

Every candidate takes a position on the Life issue, establishes himself or herself as either a pro-pro-life or an anti-pro-life. Everyone stakes out a position, but, very few candidates actually walk out those positions in the way the Palins have and are.

So how do Barack Obama and Sarah Palin come across?

Obama on what he would call “inconvenient” life:

Before birth: Abortion. After birth (when abortion fails): Infanticide. Severely handicapped adults like Teri Schiavo: Death by starvation and dehydration.

And yet, citing the Gospel According to Matthew, Obama tells Rick Warren that American’s biggest moral failing is selfishness. “We still don’t abide by that basic precept of Matthew: that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”

Of course, Obama conveniently redefines “least of these” to mean anything but the pre-born, accidentally newborn, or the handicapped adult.

Palin on what she would never call “inconvenient” life:

“We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential.”

Children born with so-called disabilities: “I see a perfect child.”

Pregnant, unmarried children: “Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We are proud of if Bristol’s decision to have her baby,”

Grandchildren conceived outside of marriage: ” . . .and [We are] even prouder to become grandparents.”

The Obama attitude toward babies:

“I’ve got two daughters. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby, I don’t want them punished with an STD.”

In other words, Obama’s position is that an unwanted baby is about as welcome as an STD.

The Palin attitude toward babies:

Whatever the circumstances of a baby’s conception, prenatal development, or birth, babies are beautiful, perfect, and cherished.

To the salivating hyenas of the left, one question: Whose grandchild would you rather be?

– Cyndy Shearer (wife of RedHatRob)

Qualified to be Vice-President

“I would rather live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” – William F. Buckley

It didn’t take 15 minutes after John McCain’s announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate before she was being denounced as “lacking experience.” This provoked guffaws of course, especially when the issued is raised from the campaign of Barack Obama, who is less than four years into his first term as a United States Senator.

There are two kinds of experience in elected office, and they are radically different. On the one hand, are those who are elected as legislators. On the other are those who are elected as executives. It is a mistake to lump them together.

I would value much more highly any presidential candidate’s experience as an elected executive – city mayor, county mayor, governor – than any candidate’s experience as a legislator. The experience of a legislator is vastly different. A legislator acts officially only when his legislative body is in session. He (or she) usually has the leisure of time to ponder positions, background papers, and briefings with a great deal of advance notice before actually having to make a decision, take a position or cast a vote. Not so an elected executive. They must make hundreds of important decisions on a daily, weekly, monthly basis – and they rarely if ever have the luxury of time.

In fact, Sarah Palin is perhaps the BEST qualified of the four (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin) to assume the duties of the presidency.

And don’t even get me started about how small Wasilla is… or the fact that Alaska has a population considerably less than a million. Have you looked up the census figures on Delaware? Delaware has three counties and ONE congressman. Being elected to the US Senate from Delaware is not much tougher than being elected to the state legislature in many other states.

Delaware has 1,954 square miles making it the 49th smallest state. Anyone know how big Alaska is? Class? That’s right, Ferris. 656,525 square miles. Or roughly 335 times larger than Delaware.

Any other questions?

– Rob Shearer (aka RedHatRob)

Qualified to be Vice-President, part 2

Some of our best presidents have moved up from the office of Governor.

Look over this list of “modern” presidents (since Lincoln)

1860 Lincoln – Congressman from Illinois (he had served one term 1846-1848)
1868 Grant – General of the Army
1876 Hayes – Governor of Ohio
1880 Garfield – Congressman from Ohio (the only sitting congressman ever elected President)
1881 Arthur – Collector of the Port of New York (administrator of the Customs House)
1888 Harrison – Senator from Indiana
1892 Cleveland – Governor of New York
1896 McKinley – Governor of Ohio
1904 Roosevelt – Governor of New York
1908 Taft – Secretary of War
1912 Wilson – Governor of New Jersey
1920 Harding – Senator from Ohio (first sitting Senator ever elected President)
1924 Coolidge – Governor of Massachusetts
1928 Hoover – Commerce Secretary
1932 Roosevelt – Governor of New York
1948 Truman – Vice-President, Senator from Missouri
1952 Eisenhower – General of the Army
1960 Kennedy – Senator from Massachusetts
1964 Johnson – Senator from Texas
1968 Nixon – Vice-President, Senator from California
1976 Carter – Governor of Georgia
1980 Reagan – Governor of California
1988 Bush – Vice-President, Congressman from Texas
1992 Clinton – Governor of Arkansas
2000 Bush – Governor of Texas

Before we go judging Sarah Palin’s resume too harshly, it’s worth remembering a governor chosen vice-president a century ago.

A governor who had served less than two years of his first term when he was placed on the ticket as Vice-President.

He had reputation as a maverick with an explosive temper. As a state legislator, he had once threatened his committee members with a broken chair leg. His private life had caused raised eyebrows as well. When his wife died shortly after the birth of their first child, he abandoned his infant daughter to the care of relatives and fled town – not returning for almost three years.

He was only 41, and when he was unexpectedly elevated to the presidency the press and pundits of the day ranged from skeptical to scathing. He was dubbed “His Accidency.”

Nonetheless, Theodore Roosevelt went on to prove the critics wrong and proved quite successful as President. He remains the only US President to have won both the Nobel Peace Prize and the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Which one of these looks more like Teddy to you?



– Rob Shearer (aka RedHatRob)

OBAMA EX MACHINA

Obama Ex Machina.lores

cartoon by Pansy

– Rob Shearer

UPDATE: Several people have emailed me to complain that they don’t “get” the cartoon (aside from the Clinton pun on wench/winch). A “Deus ex machina” is a device from the plays of the ancient Greeks. They invented drama. Several of their playwrights were fond of resolving impossibly complicated situations by “flying in” a god at the very end who tidied up all the loose ends. The actor playing the god was lowered in over the top of the scenery using a winch, called in Greek, a “machina.” Hence, the phrase: “deus ex machina.”

Aristotle (the world’s first drama critic, among other things) was very critical of the playwrights who used this device. He likened it to cheating and insisted that plot complications should be resolved realistically in a way that was internally consistent with the action of the rest of the play and the characters.

Aren’t you glad you asked?

No Executive Incumbent on the ballot in 2008

and that will be the first time this has been true since . . . class? anyone? Bueller?

Try 1952. That’s right, its been 56 years since we held a presidential election in which neither of the nominees for president was an incumbent in the executive branch.

What does that mean? Not sure. The powers of incumbency are formidable. Media attention, staff assistance, executive travel perks, just to name a few. The prestige of being President or Vice-President is intangible, but obviously significant. Only three incumbent presidents lost (Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush 41 in 1992). Six won. But of the four vice presidents who ran, only one succeeded in being elected president (Bush 41).

Here’s the list (from memory):

1952 Eisenhower vs. Stevenson
1956 Eisenhower (President) vs. Stevenson
1960 Nixon (Vice President) vs. Kennedy
1964 Johnson (President) vs. Goldwater
1968 Humphrey (Vice President) vs. Nixon
1972 Nixon (President) vs. McGovern
1976 Ford (President) vs. Carter
1980 Carter (President) vs. Reagan
1984 Reagan (President) vs. Mondale
1988 Bush 41 (Vice President) vs. Dukakis
1992 Bush 41 (President) vs. Clinton
1996 Clinton (President) vs. Dole
2000 Gore (Vice President) vs. Bush 43
2004 Bush 43 (President) vs. Kerry
2008 Clinton? vs. Thompson?

I can do the list from memory, because, with the exception of the 1952 and 1956 elections, I have memories of all these campaigns. My political memories are sharp and clear. My belief that there are political solutions to our problems is growing increasingly dim.

-Rob Shearer
  Director, Schaeffer Study Center